Gmail from lynx.browser.org

[vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com]

I've used Gmail from lynx for a decade, but a year ago it asked me to log
back in and in so doing gets me blocked off for not having javascript

Would appreciate workarounds.

I have been unable to use linkedin from lynx for a few years ev'tho
I tried to go to a GUI site and SCP the catchpa..

I use plain text dos-to-unix dialup from home which has been my only access
during the pandemic


--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus
blog: panix.com/~vjp2/ruminatn.htm - = - web: panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
facebook.com/vasjpan2 - linkedin.com/in/vasjpan02 - biostrategist.com
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

[Ben Bacarisse]

vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com writes:

> I've used Gmail from lynx for a decade, but a year ago it asked me to log
> back in and in so doing gets me blocked off for not having javascript
>
> Would appreciate workarounds.

I'd use an email client rather than a browser. There are lots of
text-based email programs you could use. I use gnus in emacs, but
that's probably too heavy-weight for your taste. Mutt?

--
Ben.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 23:52:35 -0000 (UTC)
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> I've used Gmail from lynx for a decade, but a year ago it asked me to log
> back in and in so doing gets me blocked off for not having javascript
>
> Would appreciate workarounds.

You can use the -useragent option of lynx to make it pretend to be a
different browser , one which supports javascript. For years (but not
anymore) googlegroups said that it wanted javascript but if I instructed w3m
to pretend to be firefox , I could read googlegroups just fine. If on the
other hand gmail genuinely requires javascript now then lynx is out.

--
vlaho.ninja/prog

[John McCue]

vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> I've used Gmail from lynx for a decade, but a year ago it asked me to log
> back in and in so doing gets me blocked off for not having javascript
>
> Would appreciate workarounds.
>

<snip>

mutt works great with gmail, I use it all the time via imap.

[Javier]

John McCue <jmc...@fuzzball.mhome.org> wrote:
> mutt works great with gmail, I use it all the time via imap.

Not anymore. Right now I can only read gmail IMAP folders from mutt,
but since a pair of years ago, to be able to send messages from mutt I
need to install mutt 2.0 (that's the easy part) and configure XOAUTH2
(not trivial), which requests a code from a webpage to send emails.

In the case of Yahoo mail it's even worser as they require XOAUTH2 to
read emails via IMAP. Gmail might do the same in the near future.
They will say, of course, that it's for the sake of security.

[Janis Papanagnou]

On 10.09.2021 14:19, Javier wrote:
>
> They will say, of course, that it's for the sake of security.

Or for the sake of data privacy.

(The top two famous [usually brainless] excuses.)

Janis

[John McCue]

Javier <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> John McCue <jmc...@fuzzball.mhome.org> wrote:
>> mutt works great with gmail, I use it all the time via imap.
>
> Not anymore. Right now I can only read gmail IMAP folders from mutt,
> but since a pair of years ago, to be able to send messages from mutt I
> need to install mutt 2.0 (that's the easy part) and configure XOAUTH2
> (not trivial), which requests a code from a webpage to send emails.

Interesting, I have not had to change any config to use
mutt with gmail. I did read about it early this year
but decided to wait and see.

If that ever hits me I will probably drop gmail if I
cannot figure out how to easily set it up. Right now
I only use gmail for Mailing Lists.

<snip>

[Javier]

Probably that depends from the country from which you connect to
gmail, or some other profiling of yourself that google likes so much
to do with their users.

In my case from an UK IP address I can read gmail IMAP folders, but I
need XOAUTH2 to send messages with SMTP.

[Eli the Bearded]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3501#section-11

11. Security Considerations

IMAP4rev1 protocol transactions, including electronic mail data, are
sent in the clear over the network unless protection from snooping is
negotiated. This can be accomplished either by the use of STARTTLS,
negotiated privacy protection in the AUTHENTICATE command, or some
other protection mechanism.

Changes now are because the "security considerations" in 2003 were very
very lax.

Elijah
------
ITAR's export controls on encryption were likely fresh in mind still

[Janis Papanagnou]

On 10.09.2021 20:02, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.unix.shell, Janis Papanagnou <janis_pa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10.09.2021 14:19, Javier wrote:
>>> They will say, of course, that it's for the sake of security.
>> Or for the sake of data privacy.
>> (The top two famous [usually brainless] excuses.)
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3501#section-11

> [...]

> Changes now are because the "security considerations" in 2003 were very
> very lax.

My comment was not addressing any Internet protocols. (My early IT days
where influenced by ITU-standards where (as opposed to the respective
Internet ["Sxxx"="simple"] standards) addressing security regularly and
inherently.) So, yes, it's good if Internet is now addressing security
seriously and regularly. Nonetheless "Security" and "Data Privacy" are
_generally_ used as excuse _everywhere_ - which was my point.[*]

Janis

[*] Current example: I requested to know a public server IP-address from
my ISP. They replied I have to send an [unprotected] email with my [data
privacy relevant] IDs to them to be able to give me that information. In
other words, they forced my to compromise my data privacy while claiming
that this would be for data privacy reasons. There's countless examples
like that.

[Eli the Bearded]

There might be something there, but you've filed off so many details all
I see is "DNS requests need an IP to send a response to."

Elijah
------
have you tried DoH through seven VPNs? good luck

[Barry Margolin]

On Sep 10, 2021, Janis Papanagnou wrote
(in article <shgdtq$kbh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

> [*] Current example: I requested to know a public server IP-address from
> my ISP. They replied I have to send an [unprotected] email with my [data
> privacy relevant] IDs to them to be able to give me that information. In
> other words, they forced my to compromise my data privacy while claiming
> that this would be for data privacy reasons. There's countless examples
> like that.

Why do you need to ask something like that from your ISP? Just use dig or
nslookup.
--
Barry Margolin

[David W. Hodgins]

That's only if you have a dns record provided by the isp, and know what it is.

"inxi -i" will show the public ipv4 address, and if available, the ipv6 address.
"wget -qO - http://ident.me/" will show the ipv6 address, but if that's not set
up, the ipv4 address.
"wget -qO - http://smxi.org/opt/ip.php" will show the ipv4 address whether ipv6
has been set up or not.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change dwho...@nomail.afraid.org to davidw...@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

[Janis Papanagnou]

They disabled a server (identified by a DNS name). From some posts I
got the impression that the server name has changed. I need the new
server DNS-name or IP-address to connect to; or so I thought.

You say I can somehow get the new name with these tools without any
further information (neither name nor address) available?

Janis

[vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com]

*+-You can use the -useragent option of lynx to make it pretend to be a
*+-different browser , one which supports javascript. For years (but not
*+-anymore) googlegroups said that it wanted javascript but if I instructed w3m
*+-to pretend to be firefox , I could read googlegroups just fine. If on the
*+-other hand gmail genuinely requires javascript now then lynx is out.

I thought I tried that, but I'll check.. someone gave me the ultimate new
version of firefox that goes around a lot of problems. Maybe it's not new
anymore

THis is the proc I set up in bash
'lynx -useragent="Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0" -accept_all_cookies '

[vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com]

In <pPWCpSLJ...@bongo-ra.co> by Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> on Thu, 09 Sep 2021 09:10:53 we perused:

*+-to pretend to be firefox , I could read googlegroups just fine. If on the
*+-other hand gmail genuinely requires javascript now then lynx is out.

It just requires it to log in.